Slashdot Mirror
North American Gov't Offices that Won't Move to Linux?
eugene ts wong asks: "There have been a quite a few stories lately of governments cutting budgets and seriously examining the use of Linux in their offices. I'm getting the strong impression that the majority of government desktops will become Linux desktops. Is this true? As of right now, how many US state governments and Canadian provincial governments -do not- use Linux for their work stations? As of right now, how many -do not- intend on installing Linux? I think that knowing this is important so that we can direct our attention to the appropriate governments, in hopes of helping them to make the correct choice."
Classic Slashdot... good times, good times.
Linux is never ever EVER the correct choice for 100% of the people 100% of the time. Neither is any other OS / chip / RAM type / network protocol / pizza topping / illegal drug.
I REALLY hope you meant to say "in hopes of helping them to make the correct choice about Linux and whether or not its a good fit for them."
The correct choice? Correct choice for who? You or them? Why is Linux always the correct choice? I'm sure some government agencies would be perfectly well served using the systems they already have in place. I think they can also be trusted to decide what's "correct" for them.
"Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
I'm writing this from a Linux workstation owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia Tech actually), but sometimes Linux is not the best choice. Any shop (government or otherwise) should not be told that they have to pick Linux to help them "make the correct choice."
/.
There are other OSs out there that are not Linux that are the best choice.
Refusal to *consider* Linux is another story, but that's not what your statment / question said you wanted to talk about. Was it? You basically say that everyone should be using Linux on the desktop.
I'd love to be able to fix MacOS X boxes all day, then I could concentrate more on
Having to explain linux all day would bad as explaining Windows all day, for some of my users, just as I have to explain Windows repeatedly to my entrenched DOS user, the BSD user who likes to run our servers from his FreeBSD Box, the geek next door that uses Solaris (came with his hardware, and is free for education if he wants to upgrade)....
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Reading Slashdot, I'm under the impression that Windows XP can't run 10 minutes without crashing, Macs explode if you plug in a 3 button mouse, the DMCA forbids backing up your data, John Ashcroft will put me in jail for watching foreign films and I just got first post.
In fact, the most recent Halloween Document describes Microsoft's frustration at the inability of their PR machine to keep pace with the volume of nonsensical claims of enormous Linux deployments coming from the Open Source media. They didn't mention sites by name, but I have a good idea which Taco-riffic site and its stories about "Norway Switches to Linux!" they had in mind.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Too bad we can't mod the article (-1, Flamebait). I like Linux, but it can't do all the jobs in every situation. Besides, if someone doesn't want to use something, what makes you think you have the right to make them use it?
The question should have been asked: "What operating systems are governments considering for the desktops of the typical employee?"
Boiled down, Slashdot is not the place to be asking this question. Once you have compiled the list by asking the decision-makers, THEN you can tell Slashdot your results. THEN you can let Slashdot readers evangelise to their local governments for their favourite operating system, WHATEVER that may be.
The question that was asked is too biased to get an answer that is worth more than a fart in church.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.